JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Srivastava, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Counsel for respondent no. 3, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Counsel for respondent no. 7, Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that name of the petitioner was ordered to be recorded in the revenue records vide order dated 4.9.1976 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in case No. 425 under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act in respect to plot No. 60, New Nos. 176, 177, 302, 303 and 304 situated in Village Marvat Tappa Puraina Pargana Amroha, Tehsil Harraiya, District-Basti. On the basis of the order dated 4.9.1976, the name of the petitioner was recorded in revenue records. C.H. Form 45 has been annexed along with the writ petition as Annexure No. 1. Petitioner remained in possession of the plot in dispute on the basis of the order dated 4.9.1976. Notification under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act took place on 8.2.1978 in respect to Village in question. Against the order dated 4.9.1976, private-respondent nos. 3 to 5 filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act along with the delay condonation application. The appeal was registered as appeal No. 512 on 26.4.2017. Petitioner filed his objection dated 18.12.2017 in aforementioned appeal No. 512 stating specifically that Village has been denotified under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act on 8.2.1978. Therefore the appeal is liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation, the ground has also been taken in the objection that respondent nos. 3 to 5 have no locus to file an appeal against the order dated 4.9.1976. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 19.9.2019 allowed the delay condonation application vide order dated 19.9.2019 and fixed the appeal for disposal on merit. Against the order dated 19.9.2019, petitioner filed a revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act which was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2021 on the ground of maintainability. Against the order dated 12.10.2021, petitioner filed a restoration application which was also dismissed on 21.12.2021. Hence this writ petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that appeal filed under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act after 41 years on behalf of respondent nos. 3,4 and 5 who has no locus to file the application has been illegally entertained by Settlement Officer Consolidation. He further submitted that delay of 41 years has been arbitrarily condoned by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He further submitted that Village has also been denotified long back, as such, the appeal filed by respondent nos. 3 to 5 under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was not maintainable before the Consolidation Court. He further submitted that respondent nos. 3 to 5 have no locus to file the appeal against the order dated 4.9.1976 but the Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally granted benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act in filing appeal which was delayed by 41 years. He further submitted that Revisional Court has dismissed the revision as well as the restoration application in arbitrary manner on the ground that revision is no maintainable against the order passed condoning the delay in filing the appeal. He submitted that impugned orders be set aside as the filing of appeal after 41 years by the respondent nos. 3,4 and 5 is a abuse of process of law.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Pandey appearing for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 submitted that respondent nos. 3,4 and 5 are residents of Village Maravat and Village Maravat is within the Gram Panchayat Gobhiya. He further submitted that petitioner Vijay Narayan was posted as Lekhpal in the year 1975-1976 and he misused his position. He further submitted that the order dated 4.9.1976 is the fraudulent act of the petitioner, Vijay Narayan. He further submitted that no lease was executed by the Land Management Committee in respect to the plot in d